Arguments for the Death Penalty

Capital chastisement is one of the oldest types of judgment. It was used even before the malfeasant law arose in the modern sense of this term. Disputes over whether the death chastisement has a right to exist arise amid scientists and public activists for many decades. Apparently, these controversies will continue.

Despite the fact that a lot has been written about the death chastisement, the theoretical development of this problem continues. At first glance, the term of the capital chastisement is clear. This is the deprivation of a person’s life. This is an exceptional measure of castigation, which, as a rule, can only be imposed for particularly serious crimes. However, there are some exceptions from this rule which are able to answer a question is the death penalty effective. For example, this castigation is applied in China for drug trafficking and bribery. For this cause, the level of corruption in this country is one of the lowest in the world.

We Will Write A Custom Essay Sample On ANY TOPIC SPECIFICALLY FOR YOUFor Only $13.90/page

Let’s consider the following features of the death chastisement. The most significant one is that it is castigation. It has features that characterize precisely this measure of state coercion. The essence of any punishment is a scourge. It is manifested to the maximum extent in this form of castigation. The convict is deprived of the most precious thing a person has – his life. Naturally, at the same time, he is deprived of all other rights and interests, but this happens only after the execution is carried out. This moment is very significant since before the execution of the sentence the convict has a lot of rights that are inherent in him as a defendant person to this chastisement.

All researchers of this type of castigation note that the death chastisement causes suffering. This, of course, is a sign of any chastisement, but talking about the most extreme one, it is necessary to note a very significant feature. The convict feels suffering at the moment of sentencing and when a defendant person is waiting for its execution. In this situation, most convicts have a fear to die, which is often combined with the awareness of the desperation of their situation, and sometimes with the awareness of guilt. But at the moment of bringing the sentence to execution, they cease. The sufferings of the malfeasant are no longer needed for the society. There is the following question. Does society want to simply deprive a person of life, or does it want to repay him for what he has done, revenge for the harm, and cause additional suffering? This issue is more than rhetorical, and there are always be a lot of representatives who provide arguments for the death penalty and against it.

Here are some of the most persuasive causes why the death penalty is good.

This is a fair castigation. The modern type of this kind chastisement is a kind of blood vengeance, which was natural in ancient times. Moreover, the castigation should be commensurate with the crime. Naturally, even murder can be different: it can be an exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense, and murder by negligence or in a state of affect. Investigative bodies and the judiciary work to establish the sooth in such cases. However, the murderers, who consciously committed their crimes, and even more serial ones, should be punished with all the severity of the law.

This is a deterrent. The irreversibility of castigation in the form of the death chastisement can be a good deterrent for many types of crimes. In countries where this punishment is imposed for less serious misconduct, such as theft or bribery, these phenomena are virtually nullified. No one wants to die because of an expensive thing or a small amount of money.

This is a way to protect society. The death chastisement is an ideal method for protecting society from dangerous social elements. Even during life imprisonment, a malfeasant can simply escape from a prison, or continue to kill behind bars. The death chastisement relieves society of these people forever.

This is an economic benefit. This argument is often one of the most significant in disputes over the applying or abolition of the death chastisement in certain countries. A malfeasant sentenced to life imprisonment becomes a state-dependent whose maintenance will be carried out until the end of his days at the expense of taxpayers. It is not fair. Moreover, the relatives of victims are also taxpayers.

This is more humane than life imprisonment. In fact, life imprisonment without the right to amnesty is also a “death sentence,” but only prolonged in time. The most dangerous malfeasants or those for whom there is a threat of their life in prison, for example, rapists and pedophiles, are kept in solitary confinement cells. They will spend their lives in a concrete cage, leaving it for a few hours per day to breathe fresh air. Of all the activities they are allowed only to write and read. In this case, rapid death is a more humane castigation.

I believe that the death chastisement should be applied. It’s cruel, but it’s fair. However, it is necessary to say about the most crucial issue. This type of castigation can only be used in the countries with the highest; I can even say, the ideal level of justice, otherwise it can degenerate into an extermination.